Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (35.21)

Please STOP Lying to US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Recs

21

April 14, 2009 – Comments (24)

The problem is NOT that banks are not lending enough.

The problem is that banks lent TOO MUCH and few can afford to borrow another dime.

Get ready.....things are about to get really interesting as more and more simply go bankrupt because they can't afford to make interest payments as banks jack up rates even more as we hand them billions of free taxpayer money.

It is time to restructure banks and the nation.

Prepare...you are about to fear.

24 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 14, 2009 at 12:33 PM, herztical (28.35) wrote:

...like a broken record here

Report this comment
#2) On April 14, 2009 at 12:53 PM, whereaminow (61.23) wrote:

The Progressives only want power. That is their only agenda, as it has been since their beginning.  Political ideology is secondary and only serves to motivate their followers. 

The anticapitalists on both the left and right do not care about the poor or social justice.  They only care about consolidating their grip. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On April 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM, catoismymotor (35.95) wrote:

I once told my son we were goingto take a trip to Disney Land. I then drove him to the hulk of a burned down warehouse. I said to him, "Oh, no. Disney Land has been destoyed." I then drove us home.

Report this comment
#4) On April 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM, lenri (76.56) wrote:

There is an interesting article in WSJ today on David's point. During FDR days there were two groups of these progressives within his administration constantly battling each other. One group wanted the government overseeing the financial companies only until there was a solid economic foundation for the restoration of free market capitalism which then they wanted the government to release their reins.

The second group were comprised of the socialist ideologues who wished to use the Depression as a means of gaining and holding power for the Fed over the economic market forever thus ending capitalism.

"We should never waste a good financial crisis" both Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton have said during this recession. Which group of progressives do you think comprises the most power in this administration?

Report this comment
#5) On April 14, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Hwed (< 20) wrote:

Where I work, "progressive" is a word we use to describe cancer.

 

Report this comment
#6) On April 14, 2009 at 1:58 PM, FinancialModeler (27.21) wrote:

The banks must repay the government whatever TARP funds they'v been given. SURPRISE! Yea, it's a liberal conspiracy to take over the country! You people are paranoid. Let me guess, some of you are also 9/11 truthers. Don't be shy. 

Report this comment
#7) On April 14, 2009 at 2:17 PM, alstry (35.21) wrote:

Financal,

The banks don't have any money to pay back with....why do you think we are giving them trillions in tmoney in the first place?  Pretty soon, none of their borrowers will have any money either.  How do you expect them to pay back something they don't have nor will ever get unless we give it to them?

And you call yourself financialmodeler?

Report this comment
#8) On April 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM, scorp1us (< 20) wrote:

The problem is bigger than that. We have a national debt in which we can no longer afford to service the sebt obligation. Every year we run a deficit, we are just paying artificially low taxes, and pushing the rest to the next generation. However the rate of expenditure is far supassing our ability to pay. This means the collapse of the dollar and hopefully. America. That way we can rebuild her to be solid again. The problem is we demand more, but without higher taxes. We need to learn real quick that we aren't entitles to squat. That even tough we tax at 20-30%, our sense of entitlement needs 40-60% to not run a deficit that will eat our kids. We can change and avoid collapse, but only if we are ready to admit the government isn't the miracle worker. The federal government should return to its limited Constitutional limits, and stop being the answer to the people. The states are supposed to be doing that.

 

Report this comment
#9) On April 14, 2009 at 8:38 PM, FinancialModeler (27.21) wrote:

alstry, 

Banks can issue stock, they can issue bonds, they can reduce lending and use that capital to repay TARP, not to mention the profits they made in the first quarter (which I'm sure you'v conviently ignored). Additionally, TARP was only $700 billion, not "trillions". Wow, you'r rating is so high but you appear to not know what you'r talking about...lol, and yea i do call myself financialmodeler. What gives?

Report this comment
#10) On April 15, 2009 at 7:36 AM, alstry (35.21) wrote:

If banks could do anything you say, then why not do it?

We committed trillions of dollars to the banks. 

Think about that number for a bit as you think of yourself as a financialmodeler.

Report this comment
#11) On April 15, 2009 at 9:26 AM, FinancialModeler (27.21) wrote:

THEY ARE DOING IT. Goldman Sachs just issued stock to pay back their TARP. AND TARP IS $700 BILLION, NOT "TRILLIONS". Before talking shit, maybe you should get your facts straight?

Report this comment
#12) On April 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Billullo (< 20) wrote:

Financial, you are one more sheep in the herd! YOu really believe banks made money the first quarter? Good luck to you pal!

Report this comment
#13) On April 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM, FinancialModeler (27.21) wrote:

billullo, right everyone who disagrees with your paranoid point of view is a sheep! Good one champ! 

Report this comment
#14) On April 17, 2009 at 1:05 PM, whereaminow (61.23) wrote:

FinacialModeler,

What is the optimum supply of money in an economy?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On April 17, 2009 at 1:15 PM, FinancialModeler (27.21) wrote:

There is never an "optimum" supply of money. The money supply is always in flux. If you need a number, 1-5% yearly inflation. 

Report this comment
#16) On April 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM, whereaminow (61.23) wrote:

Where does that number, 1-5% yearly inflation derive from. What is the justification for that?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#17) On April 17, 2009 at 1:24 PM, maxhoffa (< 20) wrote:

i like it when people are too afraid to move

yup, this is the end of the world.  disaster looms.  probably as early as monday, tuesday at the latest.

ha!

give me a date.  when is this big collapse going to come?  you've all been predicting it for months, but so far, nothing.  this 40% slide obviously wasn't enough, you're expecting something much bigger, much worse.

just give me a rough date.  this summer?  

can these threads stop after that?  

Report this comment
#18) On April 17, 2009 at 2:11 PM, farmnut1985 (47.11) wrote:

Who can really predict when everything is going to happen.  I agree that we haven't seen the worse yet as the rising markets is just a placebo to make everyone feel we are making progress.  The facts are the number of unemployed keeps increasing, and until the rate of increasing unemployment slows, and foreclosures slow, the possibility of an even bigger collapse seems very possible.  From the state of things, I have no reason to believe we have seen the bottom. 

Does anyone know how much money the federal reserve printed in the last 6 months and added to circulation?  I'm asking because I have heard rumors of numbers but haven't taken the time to research it and figured some of you probably keep on top of some of the financial news better than I.  Good comments.

Report this comment
#19) On April 17, 2009 at 2:46 PM, maxhoffa (< 20) wrote:

well, the placebo is sure making me feel better.  news still sucks, but it sucks less and less all the time.  market always leads the economy, unemployment is a lagging indicator, yada yada yada. 

this market panic was sooo hyped,  and arguably with good reason, it was a doosy all right.  but c'mon, the press was all over the place with doomsday scearios, every day, hell, every hour a fresh report about how screwed we all are, jim cramer yelling to sell it all, etc.

how can banks be making money this quarter?  a few ways . . . a lot of the losses have already been written off, they're done with.  m2m didn't value assets in a deflationary panic any better than it did in a bubble . . . a lot of what has been written down are fully performing assets intended to be held until maturity.  capital taken out of the market had to go somewhere, and yeah, a lot of it went into places like BofA and Wells and JPM as deposits (it didn't all go into underperforming bonds and precious metals) and new loans have been written on those deposits. yes, loans.   i don't know anyone (personally) who has been foreclosed on.  i know of 4 people who have managed to sell homes this quarter though, all of those homes were sold via home mortgage. 

the VAST majority of mortgages, both home and commercial, are current.  TARP helped, no denying it, it was probably essential when lending froze.  cheap fed dollars continue to help, no doubt about it.  but to say those are the ONLY reasons banks are turning a profit this quarter misses a large part of what else drives the industry.

lookit, times are tough, the economy is still a mess.  but it's not ALL bad.  the vast majority of people are not going to lose either their home or their job.  

we'll be ok.  

 

Report this comment
#20) On April 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM, FinancialModeler (27.21) wrote:

whereaminow,

It's obviously low to moderate inflation. What's your justification for wanting persistent deflation as a new (albeit looney) paradigm?

Report this comment
#21) On April 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM, whereaminow (61.23) wrote:

FinancialModeler,

I am merely trying to point out that the case for moderate inflation has no basis in empirical, ethical, or utilitarian analysis.

I support neither deflation nor inflation.  I support the market pricing of money as any other commodity. 

For example, we had monetary supply decreases from 1871-1900 and yet steady economic growth, (A Monetary History of the United States - Milton Friedman)

We also had decreasing prices from the late 1700's until World War II, only interrupted by times of war (War of 1812, Civil War, World War I). This period is also considered the greatest advancement in productivity in world history.  (The Ethics of Money Production - Jorg Hulsmann)

I have not seen any a policy of moderate monetary inflation is superior to market pricing of money. So I ask these questions to determine if there is any basis for the claim that we should strive for it.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On April 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM, whereaminow (61.23) wrote:

I have not seen any a policy of moderate monetary inflation is superior to market pricing of money.

Should read

I have not seen any evidence that a policy of moderate monetary inflation is superior to market pricing of money.

Report this comment
#23) On April 17, 2009 at 5:45 PM, JonBarleycorn (69.30) wrote:

Nice post. Nice thread. But, just remember, it’s always darkest before pitch black.

JB

Report this comment
#24) On April 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM, JonBarleycorn (69.30) wrote:

Nice post. Nice thread. But, just remember, it’s always darkest before pitch black.

JB

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement